Federer, and how nothing has changed: Putting it in perspective

first off, its REALLY ridiculous how some people, being so used to Roger winning all the time, being spoiled by it all, is so fast pulling the trigger on statements such as "Roger is declining" "Roger should focus on winning", etc etc. uhm, the guy has WON 3 GRAND SLAMS THIS YEAR. PERIOD. THAT ALONE SHOULD TELL IT ALL. ENOUGH SAID... BUT, it seems some people need some "explanation" for it all.. so here goes what i personally observed which i hope will put things in perspective.

Obviously, Roger has been more focused on Grand Slams in recent years, and doesn't put much of himself in Masters and lower-level tournaments. In fact nothing has changed. Think about this: Last year he won 3 Slams, and so many tournaments with only 5 losses.. BUT... in reality, how did he win some of those "lesser" tournaments? Let's see... He was involved in a 3-set/all-tiebreaker match with Ljubicic.. which COULD HAVE GONE EITHER WAY...He ALMOST LOST TO ROCHUS ON GRASS (No LESS!!) at Halle, with the match going 3-sets on a 3rd set tiebreaker which Rochus lost, and Federer won unconvincingly... He ALMOST LOST TO PARADORN at Basel, again taking 3 sets, with the 3rd set tiebreak almost going Paradorn's way.. and finally HE WOULD HAVE LOST his round robin match with Roddick at the TMC 2006 if Roddick had not self-destructed.. SO what do I want to establish with these observations?? He could have just as easily compiled 9 or more losses last year, if not for a bit of luck and self-destruction by his opponents in lesser tournaments (Masters, etc).. The point is, its clear that Roger focuses solely 100% in Slams (where he IS the Roger we all know), and performs just "pretty well" on other tournaments. It seems he "forces" himself to always win in Slams (that's why he is so in awe also of Nadal on clay, because even he struggles with Nadal at Roland Garros even when he is at 100% focus and level), BUT is always in "cruise control" at other tournaments, and is more content not to force the issue and win, but sometimes just to perform "pretty well" and just wait for his opponents to self-destruct.

In other words, it seems that at Slams, he really WANTS to win at all cost (this is why he is invincible in slams....except at RG.. again, the reason why he always has high praise for Nadal.. because only Nadal beats a focused Roger at RG..), and does his utmost best... but, when it comes to other tournaments, even Masters level, he seemingly just says to himself "Well, if my pretty good enough is good enough to win, then ok.. if not, then ok".

The whole point is that.. what so different this year is that some guys who beat him at non-Slam tournaments, aren't self-destructing as much anymore, and so, instead of Roger winning even on "pretty good mode", he loses while on that mode.

But haven't you all noticed NO ONE and NO ONE except for Nadal EVEN EVER COMES CLOSE to beating THE "real" Roger in Slams?

this is a pretty good assessment.....a bit of luck here or there and a slightly more focused federer might have won some of the matches he lost this year...but in the past match with nalbandian, everyone would figure federer would step up to avenge his prior loss to nalbandian in madrid, but nalbandian took it to federer and beat him

nalbandian is another player who can beat federer when nalbandian is playing absolutely phenomenal, and federer is just slightly off his game

Does anyone get the feeling Fed gave yesterdays match away.
I mean, he was winning, it was 5-4 in his favor, he needed only 4 points.
Then at another point it was 30-40. Fed needed only 3 to win.

Now as per what you have said, and I am fine with it, he really would not have had to push himself to win 3 or 4 points. If he was down several games, i can understand, but it was down to a couple of points only.

I really can't say he was playing on cruise-control - His service at 5-5 was nowhere like his usual.

Which makes me wonder, whether he is deliberately losing. I know this is a big accusation, and i am a fed fan, but i can't help thinking this at times.

Things can change VERY quickly in tennis. He won 3 Slams this year, which is a friggin' unbelievable year for anyone in history, but what has he done lately? That's tennis for you - what have you done for me lately? Believe it or not, one day people are going to be brushing Federer aside as nothing and worshiping the new guy.

That being said, I think he's going to continue winning a lot of Slams.

Uhm, alafter... what a dumb comment to a serious thread. Fed is NOT "lucking it" IN GRAND SLAMS... its just that in smaller tournaments, which he doesn't focus as much, yup sometimes he waits for his chance and "luck" that his opponents will self destruct. BUT that is not what made him the great player he is..

is everyone losing hope on FedEx? I certainly don't, he's only 26, he can go until Sampras' age and win a few more grand slams. i don't mind if he doesn't win any Masters' Series because the main focus should be on the Grand Slams, the most important one, Roland Garros! i'm pretty confident he can add one RG before he retires.

nah, im not losing hope at all.. i mean he's already the GOAT in my opinion.. i was just trying to put his losses this year in perspective compared to last year.. and there's not much difference in his performance actually. It's when he gets in trouble at SLAMS that I will begin worrying about TMF (The Mighty Fed)

To be honest if we looked at his year objectively, he pulled out of Qatar, Halle and Tokyo, which if he'd entered he would have won 2 of them at least, add another MS to that, combined with pulling out of 2 others (Rome and Paris) say, and his year would have been the same as it was in 2004. I honestly don't think he's gotten worse I just think he made bad decisions this year.

nah, im not losing hope at all.. i mean he's already the GOAT in my opinion.. i was just trying to put his losses this year in perspective compared to last year.. and there's not much difference in his performance actually. It's when he gets in trouble at SLAMS that I will begin worrying about TMF (The Mighty Fed)

Click to expand...

I think that you have a point there though I attribute his failure to perform as brilliantly as we expect to to lack of focus due to distractions like commercial shoots and publicity commitments etc... plus also when you lose a couple of close matches, it can become a dangerous habit. Hence I am beginning to agree with the people that are saying that Roger needs a coach... not to teach him how to play but more to work on the psychlogical and tactical part of the game.

This post is absurd. To summarize your excuse, Fed is not trying hard enough at all the non-slam events. Ridiculous!

Face the truth, people are catching up to Fed! It doesn't make him less great, it's just that the others have improved. Get a grip.

Click to expand...

Wrong!, he normally competes in 5 smaller events and wins 4 or 5 of them, this year he competed in 2, so that's already 2 or 3 titles less than 04 and 05, he also competed in 5 MS finals, normally he would enter 6 or 7 not 9 so that's an extra 2 defeats that he wouldn't normally suffer, that plus he lost 3 of those finals, when he would usually win 3. Had he beaten Djokovic and entered Halle and Tokyo, plus skipped Rome and Paris, his year would have been basically identical to 2004.

You're are right. To all those who think that Roger is about to decline I have just something to say: this is just the beginning for something even better. Roger played 4 Grand Slams final and reached the final in every tournament he played except for IW, Miami, Rome and Bercy this year. It's obvious that he's just tired, and don't you forget that this year he's played for 3 consecutive weeks in October and he has never done this before. Then he did not reach the final in Rome but won Hamburg AMS. He beated 2 records this year: 161 consecutive weeks and counting at first place in ATP Rankings and 5 consecutive times winner of Wimbledon. What more can anyone ask for?
Remember: He's not yet in history books, he's still writing them.
Go Roger!!!

P.s. Sorry if there's any error but actually I'm Italian so don't speak English very frequently.

These boards are increasingly becoming a joke because of all the trolling saying that a player is "done with" or that's there's "something wrong" with someone if they lose a match.

Anyone who has played competitive tennis (at any level) knows how difficult it is to win matches and all the variables involved in playing good tennis (physical fatigue, mental fatigue, injuries, soreness, distractions, luck, emotional well-being, travel, an opponent who is on fire, ect.) The pros are just like us, they're not robots impervious to humanly conditions. People have set such a stupidly high standard for Federer (much higher than with Sampras--the assumption was never that Sampras would win all the small tournaments he played, more or less more than two slams in a year). The same goes for all the players though--pros can lose matches against to other pros because of how amazingly good all of these guys are.

Wrong!, he normally competes in 5 smaller events and wins 4 or 5 of them, this year he competed in 2, so that's already 2 or 3 titles less than 04 and 05, he also competed in 5 MS finals, normally he would enter 6 or 7 not 9 so that's an extra 2 defeats that he wouldn't normally suffer, that plus he lost 3 of those finals, when he would usually win 3. Had he beaten Djokovic and entered Halle and Tokyo, plus skipped Rome and Paris, his year would have been basically identical to 2004.

Click to expand...

If you can't see that Fed is not as dominant as previous years then you are f'ing BLIND and have zero credibility.

If you can't see that Fed is not as dominant as previous years then you are f'ing BLIND and have zero credibility.

Click to expand...

I think he's lost a few bad matches this year and made a few bad decisions. Losing IW and miami also didn't help, but pulling out of tournies all year, and losing some really bad finals, makes for a bad season.

Uhm, alafter... what a dumb comment to a serious thread. Fed is NOT "lucking it" IN GRAND SLAMS... its just that in smaller tournaments, which he doesn't focus as much, yup sometimes he waits for his chance and "luck" that his opponents will self destruct. BUT that is not what made him the great player he is..

How seriously dumb can you get?

Click to expand...

Uhm, Kim...your thread is about as significant as the dirt on the pavement. More importantly, how STUPID do you have to be to take my comment in such a manner? I mean, seriously, how STUPID AND OBSESSIVE do you have to be to lash out in response to my post?

In a few days time your brilliant perspective, which you obviously have spent so much time on, will become just another thread among the thousands of other unread thread on this board. Congratulations, your brilliant perspective has earned the attention totalling some 18-19 posts before becoming just another afterthought. But no worries, while the attention of the board members change all the time, your retarded obsession will remain the same, and no one can stop you from continuing to be as so. Hey, it's a free-board, right?

Have you notice that all of the top 4 players have lost in this tournament. I think they are all mentally and physically tired from playing all those matches in the other tournaments where they were reaching the semis and finals. The players that are beating them couldn't even win a set (or occasionally took a set) from them earlier in the year, so they were put out early in the tournaments and they are much more rested coming into this tournament,

This post is absurd. To summarize your excuse, Fed is not trying hard enough at all the non-slam events. Ridiculous!

Face the truth, people are catching up to Fed! It doesn't make him less great, it's just that the others have improved. Get a grip.

Click to expand...

I dont see what is so absurd about such a notion. Sampras never used to try as hard at non-slam events as he did at slam events. Federer used to do so, and people were surprised at it. This year Federer has pulled out of a whole bunch of "smaller" tournaments for starters which he never did in the past. Seeing that as a first sign wouldnt be absurd. He may feel as he gets older he cant give 100% to all events like he used to, which is the way Sampras was in the first place even when he was in his younger dominant years.

Completely disregardng his results, Federer's tennis was uglier this year than it was last year. So I do think Fed has had a mini-slump. But I agree with one of the OP's statements; Fed had many close matches last year. I think the reasons why he won those close matches the years before was b/c, as some people mentioned, he tried harder previously. I think/hope he will try harder next year and bring out some beautiful tennis for 2008 golden slam.